women, working families, and unions

8/12/2019 Women, Working Families, and Unions

1/27

June 2014

*Janelle Jones is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington D.C. John Schmitt is a SeniorEconomist at CEPR. Nicole Woo is the Director of Domestic Policy at CEPR.

Women, Working Families,and Unions

By Janelle Jones, John Schmitt, and Nicole Woo*

Center for Economic and Policy Research1611 Connecticut Ave. NWSuite 400Washington, DC 20009

tel: 202-293-5380fax: 202-588-1356www.cepr.net
http://www.cepr.net/http://www.cepr.net/http://www.cepr.net/


2/27

Acknowledgements

We thank Eileen Appelbaum and Dean Baker for many helpful comments and Jeffrey Gianattasio andBen Wolcott for research assistance.

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Women and Unions ........................................................................................................................................... 4

The Union Advantage for Women and Families ........................................................................................ 14Wages and the Gender Pay Gap .............................................................................................................. 14Health Insurance ........................................................................................................................................ 17Retirement ................................................................................................................................................... 18Family and Medical Leave ......................................................................................................................... 19Paid Sick Days ............................................................................................................................................. 21Paid Vacation Days and Paid Holidays ................................................................................................... 22Child-care Benefits ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 23

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 24


3/27

Women, Working Families, and Unions 1

Executive Summary

One of every nine women in the United States (11.8 percent in 2013) is represented by a union at

her place of work.

The annual number of hours of paid work performed by women has increased dramatically over thelast four decades. In 1979, the typical woman was on the job 925 hours per year; by 2012, the typical

woman did 1,664 hours of paid work per year.

Meanwhile, women's share of unpaid care work and housework has remained high. Various time-use

studies conclude that women continue to do about two-thirds of unpaid child-care (and elder-care)

work and at least 60 percent of routine housework.

The research reviewed here suggests that unions can provide substantial support to women trying to

balance their paid work and their unpaid care responsibilities.

Unionized women earn, on average, 13 percent (about $2.50 dollars per hour) more than similar

non-union women. The large union wage advantage holds for women across all education levels and

even in typically low-wage occupations, including hotel cleaners, office cleaners, child-care workers,

and health aides.

Since unions disproportionately raise wages at the middle and the bottom of the wage distribution,

and since unions reduce gender wage disparities both across and within occupations, unionizationworks to reduce the gender pay gap. One recent analysis concluded that the size of the gender pay

gap for union workers was only half the size of the gender gap for non-union workers.

Unionized women are 36 percent more likely than non-union women to receive health-insurance

benefits through their job. Unionization has the biggest effect on health-insurance rates for women

with less than a high school degree or working in a range of typically low-wage occupations,

including hotel cleaners, office cleaners, child-care workers, and health aides.

Unionized women are also 53 percent more likely than non-union women to participate in anemployer-sponsored retirement plan. Again, unions raise participation in retirement plans most for

women with the least formal education or working in typically low-wage occupations.

Unionized workers are more likely to have access to all forms of family and medical leave. Union

workplaces are 22 percent more likely than non-union workplaces to allow parents to take parental


4/27


leave for a new child, 16 percent more likely to allow workers to take medical leave for their own

illness, 12 percent more likely to allow women to take leave for pregnancy, and 19 percent more

likely to allow workers to take leave to care for a sick family member.

Unionized workers are more likely to have access to paid sick days, paid vacations, and paid

holidays. In private-sector workplaces, union employers are 18 percent more likely to provide paidsick leave, 21 percent more likely to provide paid vacation, and 21 percent more likely to provide

paid holidays.

Employers with unionized workers spend more per worker-hour on work-family benefits than

employers whose workers are not unionized. In the private sector, employers with a union

workforce spend, on average per hour of work, 75 percent more on paid sick leave, 48 percent more

on paid vacations, 43 percent more on paid holidays, and 36 percent more on paid personal days.

Almost half of all unionized workers (45.8 percent in 2013) are women. If recent trends continue,

women will be more than half of the union workforce by 2025.


5/27


Introduction

Between 1979 and 2012, the typical woman increased the number of paid-work hours she performs

in a year by almost 80 percent, from 925 hours per year in 1979 to 1,664 in 2012 (Table 1). For the

typical mother with children under the age of 18, annual hours more than doubled over the same

period, from 600 in 1979 to 1,560 in 2012.1

TABLE 1

Annual Hours Worked, 1979 - 2012 (hours per year)

Percentile 1979 1989 2000 2007 2012 1979-1989 1979-2007 1979-2012

(a) Women, 16-64

10th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Median 925 1530 1820 1820 1664 605 895 739

90th 2236 2600 2600 2600 2600 364 364 364

(b) Mothers (children under 18)

10th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Median 600 1200 1600 1596 1560 600 996 960

90th 2080 2080 2080 2080 2080 0 0 0Source:Appelbaum, Boushey, and Schmitt (2014) analysis of the CEPR March CPS extracts.

Part of the increase in women's annual hours of work reflects a rise in women's employment rates.

In 1979, 47.5 percent of women age 16 and older were employed; in 2013, the share of women in

paid work had increased to 53.2 percent.2 But, most of the increase in women's annual hours of

work reflects longer hours of work for women already in paid employment. For example, in 1979,

women who worked long hours (longer hours than 90 percent of women) were on the job about

2,236 hours per year. As Table 1 shows, by 2012, women who worked long hours were putting in

about 2,600 hours per year --substantially more than the 2,080 hours per year implied by the

standard "full-time" job (40 hours per work week for 52 weeks of the year). Meanwhile, even as

employment has generally become more precarious for both men and women over the last several

decades, the share of women working part-time has not changed much and is actually slightly lower

today than it was in 1979.3

1 Annual hours of work for women (ages 16 to 64) and mothers (with children 0 to 17 years old); see Appelbaum,Boushey, and Schmitt (2014), Table 2.

2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat02.htm, accessed June 13, 2014. The women'semployment-to-population rate peaked at 57.5 percent in 2000 and was at 56.6 percent in 2007, just before the onsetof the Great Recession. In 1979, women were about 42 percent of the paid workforce; by 2013, the share hadincreased to 47 percent (analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics series LNU02000001 and LNU02000002,http://www.bls.gov/, accessed June 11, 2014).

3 Since 1979, the share of women in part-time jobs has varied between about 26 and 30 percent of all women in paidwork. See Milla Sanes, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/choosing-to-work-part-time, accessed June13, 2014.


6/27


This large increase in women's hours of paid work, however, did not coincide with a comparable

decrease in their share of unpaid work. Suzanne Bianchi, John Robinson, and Melissa Milkie (2006),

for example, found that while the share of child-care work by fathers did rise between 1965 and

2000, fathers in 2000, on average, still spent only half as many hours as mothers did on child care.

Data for 2005 prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the United Nations Human Development

Report 2007/2008 reached a similar conclusion: on average, men did only half the child-care workand one fourth of the cooking and cleaning.4Even more recently, the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports that in 2010 men in the United States, on average,

did only 40 percent of routine housework and less than one-third of care work.5

This report explores the role that unions can play in addressing the challenges facing women and

families dealing with the effects of the fast pace of change at work and the much slower pace of

change at home. We review a wide range of evidence that unions raise the wages and benefits of

women workers, as well as increase access to various forms of paid leave including paid sick days

and paid parental leave.

In the first section of this report, we present trends in unionization for women. Our analysis

generally starts in 1983, the earliest year for which we have consistent, detailed data on the union

status of U.S. workers.6We look at both the share of women workers who are unionized and at the

demographic composition (age, race, education, and other characteristics) of unionized women.

The second section surveys the available data on the impact of unionization on women's wages,

benefits, and access to various forms of paid leave.

The final section concludes with some observations about the potential role for unionization in

broader efforts to address work-life balance issues.

Women and Unions

In 2013, 11.8 percent of women in the United States (about one-in-nine) were represented by a

union at their place of work, down from 18.0 percent in 1983. But, as Figure 1shows, the decline

over the same period in the unionization rate for men has been even steeper. As a result of these

4 United Nations Development Program (2007), Table 32.5 OECD, http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/balancingpaidworkunpaidworkandleisure.htm, accessed June 3, 2014.

For an overview of the connection between time-use and inequality, see Folbre (2009).6 We take most of the data analyzed here from the Outgoing Rotation Group (ORG) of the Current Population

Survey (CPS), which contains detailed demographic and labor-market data for a large, nationally representativesample of U.S. workers. For further details on the CPS ORG data used here, see http://www.ceprdata.org/.


7/27


two trends, women now make up almost half of the unionized workforce (45.8 percent in 2013)

and, if recent trends continue, are on their way to be a majority of union workers by 2025 (Figure

2). In seven states (Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, District of Columbia, New Hampshire,

Connecticut, and Rhode Island), women are already a majority of the union workforce (Figure 3).

(Figure 4shows the corresponding unionization rates for women in each state.)

FIGURE 1Unionization Rate, 1983-2013

Source:Authors' analysis of CPS ORG.

FIGURE 2Women's Share of Total Union Employment, 1983-2030


Men

13.0Women 11.8

0

10

20

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percentofemployees

30

40

50

60

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Pe

rcentofallunionemployees


8/27


FIGURE 3Women as Share of Union Workforce, 2011-2013


32.6

32.8

33.8

39.1

40.0

40.2

40.4

40.4

40.7

41.2

41.3

41.3

41.3

42.1

42.2

42.2

42.343.5

43.7

43.9

44.0

44.1

44.1

44.2

44.4

44.8

45.2

45.8

45.9

46.0

46.146.3

46.3

46.3

46.4

47.8

48.1

48.1

48.6

48.7

49.0

49.4

49.6

49.8

50.851.5

52.0

52.8

52.9

54.8

56.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Missouri

Indiana

Wyoming

Louisiana

Idaho

Kentucky

Arkansas

Utah

Arizona

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Georgia

West Virginia

Ohio

Virginia

Texas

KansasWisconsin

Hawaii

Nevada

Illinois

Washington

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Iowa

South Dakota

New Mexico

Montana

New Jersey

North Carolina

AlabamaColorado

Alaska

Delaware

North Dakota

South Carolina

Nebraska

Michigan

Florida

Maryland

New York

Minnesota

California

Maine

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New Hampshire

Dist. Of Columbia

Oregon

Massachusetts

Vermont

Percent of all union employees


9/27


FIGURE 4Unionization Rate for Women, by State, 2011-2013


3.6

4.1

4.64.6

4.9

4.9

5.1

5.2

5.5

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.8

5.8

7.1

7.2

7.47.9

7.9

8.0

8.3

8.8

8.9

9.5

10.3

10.4

10.7

11.3

11.4

12.0

12.012.2

12.4

12.5

13.2

13.8

14.8

14.8

15.4

15.6

15.7

16.2

16.6

17.3

17.817.9

18.6

19.2

20.9

23.4

25.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Arkansas

North Carolina

South CarolinaGeorgia

Mississippi

Louisiana

Virginia

Idaho

Tennessee

South Dakota

Arizona

Utah

Wyoming

Texas

Florida

Missouri

IndianaKansas

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Nebraska

Colorado

Kentucky

Alabama

Delaware

Dist. Of Columbia

Iowa

Wisconsin

Ohio

West VirginiaNew Hampshire

Pennsylvania

Maryland

Maine

Montana

Illinois

Vermont

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Michigan

Oregon

Rhode Island

Washington

California

Hawaii

Alaska

New York

Percent


10/27


The most important reason for the rise of women's share in the union workforce is the rising share

of public-sector unions in the overall union workforce. In the 2010s, public-sector workers

accounted for roughly half of the union workforce, up from less than one-third in 1979. 7Since the

late 1970s, the unionization rate for women has held steady in the public sector, even as it fell

sharply in the private sector, especially within manufacturing (Figure 5). As a result, by 2013, well

over half (60.1 percent) of unionized women are in the public sector, up sharply from less than half(47.1 percent) in 1983 (Figure 6andTable 2).

FIGURE 5Unionization Rate by Sector, Women, 1983-2013


FIGURE 6Women Union Members, by Sector, 1983 and 2013 (percent)


7 Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, U.S. Historical Tables, unionstats.com, accessed June 11, 2014.

Public

38.4

Manufacturing

7.6

Private,Non-manufacturing

5.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percent

60.1

47.1

39.9

52.9

2013

1983

Public Private


11/27


TABLE 2

Composition of Women Employees and Women Union Workers, 1983 and 2013 (percent)

1983 2013 Change (p.p.)

Employees Union Employees Union Employees Union

White 81.7 74.8 65.8 65.6 -15.9 -9.2

Black 10.8 16.8 12.9 15.2 2.1 -1.7

Latino 4.9 5.6 14.0 12.6 9.1 7.0Other 2.6 2.8 7.3 6.7 4.7 3.8

Asian -- -- 6.2 5.9 -- --

Age

16-24 22.7 11.1 13.7 4.9 -8.9 -6.2

25-34 28.7 29.9 21.6 19.4 -7.1 -10.4

35-44 21.3 26.3 20.8 23.0 -0.4 -3.3

45-54 14.8 18.8 22.8 27.6 7.9 8.7

55-64 10.2 12.8 16.5 21.0 6.3 8.3

65+ 2.3 1.2 4.6 4.1 2.3 2.9

Less Than HS 15.9 14.3 6.0 3.1 -9.9 -11.2High School 40.7 37.4 25.5 18.9 -15.1 -18.5

Some College 24.8 18.9 32.1 25.6 7.3 6.7

College + 18.7 29.4 36.4 52.4 17.7 23.0

Immigrant -- -- 14.4 12.8 -- --

Manufacturing 15.8 19.9 6.8 4.4 -9.0 -15.5

Public Sector 19.1 47.1 18.0 60.1 -1.1 13.0

Northeast 21.7 30.3 18.9 28.3 -2.9 -2.0

Midwest 25.5 26.3 22.5 23.3 -3.0 -3.0

South 33.2 21.4 36.7 20.6 3.4 -0.8West 5.1 3.8 6.9 4.8 1.8 1.0

Pacific 14.4 18.3 15.1 23.2 0.7 4.9

Notes:Authors analysis of CPS ORG data, 1983 and 2013.

Tables 3and 4provide more detailed information on unionization rates for women by industry and

occupation. In what is primarily the public sector, education, public administration, and public

safety all have particularly high unionization rates. In what are primarily private-sector industries and

occupations, construction and various manufacturing industries have high rates of female

unionization. Several of the industry and occupation groups with high rates of union coverage have

a mixture of public- and private-sector employment, including transportation, utilities, and health

care.


12/27


TABLE 3

Twenty Industries with the Highest Unionization Rates for Women, 2011-2013

(unionized employees as a percent of total industry employment)

1 Educational Services 37.3

2 Public Administration 30.5

3 Transportation and Warehousing 29.3

4 Other Information Services 19.95 Utilities 19.7

6 Forestry, Logging, Fishing, Hunting, Trapping 17.0

7 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 15.8

8 Hospitals 15.8

9 Food Manufacturing 12.6

10 Telecommunications 12.0

11 Nonmetallic Mineral Products 10.0

12 Social Assistance 9.2

13 Beverage and Tobacco Products 9.0

14 Electrical Equipment, Appliance Manufacturing 8.1

15 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries 7.8

16 Waste Management and Remediation Services 7.2

17 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 6.7

18 Primary Metals and Fabricated Metal Products 6.7

19 Health Care Services, except Hospitals 6.5

20 Accommodation 6.3


TABLE 4

Twenty Occupations with the Highest Unionization Rates for Women, 2011-2013

(unionized employees as a percent of total occupational employment)

1 Education, Training, and Library Occupations 40.3

2 Protective Service Occupations 27.63 Construction and Extraction Occupations 22.1

4 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 20.7

5 Community and Social Service Occupation 20.6

6 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 16.0

7 Healthcare practitioner and technical occupations 14.3

8 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 13.5

9 Production Occupations 10.4

10 Healthcare Support Occupations 9.3

11 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 9.2

12 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 9.2

13 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 9.1

14 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 8.215 Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations 6.9

16 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 6.7

17 Personal Care and Service Occupations 6.6

18 Legal Occupations 6.6

19 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 6.2

20 Management Occupations 5.7

Source: Authors' analysis of CPS ORG.


13/27


One implication of the important role played by the public sector is that a majority of unionized

women have a college degree or more (Figure 7). In 2013, 52.4 percent of unionized women had

graduated from college or had an advanced degree, compared to 36.4 percent of the overall female

workforce in the same year, and compared to only 29.4 percent of unionized women in 1983. In

2013, less than one fourth of unionized women had a high school degree (18.9 percent) or less (3.1

percent).

FIGURE 7Women Union Members, by Education, 1983 and 2013 (percent)


Black women have traditionally had a much higher unionization rate than other racial and ethnic

groups (Figure 8). In 1983, for example, more than one in four black women (27.4 percent) was

represented by a union, well above the rate for Latino (20.1 percent) and white women (16.5

percent). By 2013, unionization rates had fallen for all these groups (and for Asian and Pacific

Islander (AAPI) women, where data are available only from 1989 on). Black women still had the

highest unionization rate (13.7 percent), but the margin is now much smaller relative to white (11.8

percent), AAPI (11.2 percent), and Latino (10.4 percent) women (Figure8).

FIGURE 8Unionization Rate for Women, by Race/Ethnicity, 1983-2013


3.1

14.3

18.9

37.4

25.6

18.9

52.4

29.4

2013

1983

Less Than High School High School Some College College or Higher

Black

13.7White

11.8

AAPI

11.2

Latino

10.410

20

30

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percent


14/27


These changes in unionization rates by race and ethnicity, combined with changing demographics of

the workforce as a whole, contributed to a significant shift in the racial and ethnic make-up of

women in unions. Over the last three decades, the share of white women in the union workforce fell

substantially, from 81.7 percent in 1983 to 65.8 percent in 2013 (Figure 9). Meanwhile, the share of

African-American women increased slightly (from 10.8 percent in 1983 to 12.9 percent in 2013) andthe share of AAPI and Latino women rose substantially (up 9.1 percentage points to 14.0 percent

for Latino women, and up 4.7 percentage points to 7.3 percent for AAPI women).

FIGURE 9Women Union Members, by Race/Ethnicity, 1983 and 2013 (percent)


The rise of unionized Latino and AAPI women, in particular, has brought with it an increase in the

share of the immigrants in the female union workforce. 8In 1994 (the earliest year for which data on

union status and country of birth are available), about one-in-twelve women union workers (8.2

percent) was born outside of the United States; by 2012, the figure was about one-in-eight (12.8

percent, Figure 10). Note that the rise over this period in the share of foreign-born women in

unions is entirely a function of their growing share in the overall workforce. For the last decade, theunionization rate for foreign-born women has been consistently below that of U.S.-born women

(12.0 percent for U.S.-born women in 2013, for example, compared to 10.5 percent for foreign-

born women in the same year, see Figure 11).

FIGURE 10Women Union Members, Foreign-Born, 1994 and 2013(percent)


8 In the workforce as a whole (women and men), roughly 70 percent of AAPI workers, 40 percent of Latino workers,10 percent of black workers, and 5 percent of white workers were born outside of the United States. For moredetailed discussion of immigrants in the union workforce, see Schmitt and Warner (2010) and Rho, Schmitt, Woo,Lin, and Wong (2011).

65.8

81.7

12.9

10.8

14.0

4.9

7.3

2.6

2013

1983

White Black Latino Other

12.8

8.2

87.2

91.8

2013

1994

Foreign Born U.S. Born


15/27


FIGURE 11Unionization Rate for Women, by Nativity, 1994-2013


One last dimension of the demographics of the unionized women's workforce worth highlighting is

age. Union women are older than the workforce as a whole and the age gap has been growing over

the last three decades. In 1983, 11.1 percent of union women were under the age of 25; by 2013, the

share had fallen to just 4.9 percent (Figure 12). Meanwhile, the share of union women 55 and older

increased from 14.0 percent in 1983 to 25.1 percent in 2013. As Figure 13illustrates, the decline in

unionized younger women workers and the rise in unionized older women workers partly reflects a

broader change in the age composition of the workforce. But, the figure also shows that the rise in

older union women has been much sharper than for women workers overall.

FIGURE 12Women Union Members, by Age, 1983 and 2013(percent)


U.S. Born

12.0

Foreign Born10.5

0

10

20

1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percent

4.9

11.1

19.4

29.9

23.0

26.3

27.6

18.8

21.0

12.8

4.1

1.2

2013

1983

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+


16/27


FIGURE 13Women Workers, by Age, 1983-2013


The Union Advantage for Women and Families

In this section, we document that unionized women earn higher wages, receive better health and

retirement benefits, and are more likely to have access to a range of paid leave, from paid sick days,

vacations, and holidays to paid family and medical leave.9

Wages and the Gender Pay Gap

On average, union women earn substantially higher wages than their non-union counterparts. As

Table 5shows, in 2009-2013, women workers in a union earned, on average, about 27 percent more

per hour than women who were not in a union ($24.68 per hour, compared to $19.38 per hour). 10

Union wages were much higher than non-union wages even in a range of typically low-wage jobs,

including hotel cleaners (22 percent higher), office cleaners (30 percent higher), child-care workers

(14 percent higher), and health aides (16 percent higher).

9 For historical overviews of the role of women in the labor movement, see, among others: Cobble (1993, 2005, 2007),Foner (1982), Gabin (1990), Kingsolver (1996), and Milkman (1990),

10 We have combined five years of data to provide a larger sample for analysis of union effects, especially for low-wageoccupations.

Women union, 55+

22.4

Women workers,55+

19.0Women workers,


17/27


TABLE 5

Wages, Health, and Retirement Coverage for Women, 2009-2013

Unionizationrate

(percent)

Mean hourlywage (2013$)

Health-insurance(percent)

Retirement plan(percent)

UnionNon-union Union

Non-union Union

Non-union

All women 12.2 24.68 19.38 73.1 49.1 74.4 41.8

Maids and housekeeping cleaners 6.7 14.04 11.51 69.1 22.5 47.7 14.6Janitors and building cleaners 14.0 15.36 11.81 77.3 29.5 55.3 24.4

Child care workers 6.2 12.84 11.31 27.2 15.0 32.3 10.7

Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides 11.8 14.74 12.66 60.2 39.3 48.6 22.5

All non-management occs in retail industry 5.1 14.61 14.14 64.2 36.8 50.4 30.8Notes:Authorsanalysis of CEPR extract of the Current Population Survey (CPS) Outgoing Rotation Group andMarch CPS. Wage data exclude imputed values. Union refers to union membership or union coverage. Healthinsurance refers to participation in an employer- or union-sponsored plan where the employer pays some or all of thepremium. Retirement plan refers to participation in an employer-sponsored plan, with or without employercontribution. Health and pension coverage refer to 2008-2012; wages refer to 2009-2013.

The data in Table 5, however, do not account for several systematic differences between union and

non-union women. For example, as we saw in the preceding section, women in unions tend to havemore formal education than women in the overall workforce. Unionized women are also typically

older, more likely to live in higher wage states (such as Alaska, Hawaii, and New York), and more

likely to work in the public sector than non-union women. In Table 6, we recalculate the union

wage advantage using standard regression techniques to control for these factors.11Controlling for

these factors reduces the impact of unionization on wages, but the union effect remains

economically large and statistically significant. For all women, unionization still raises wages, on

average, by 12.9 percent, which translates to about $2.50 per hour for a woman earning the average

non-union wage. For women in typically low-wage occupations, the regression-controlled union

wage advantage is also large: about 22 percent or $2.50 per hour for hotel cleaners; 28 percent or

$3.25 for office cleaners; 24 percent or $2.75 for child-care workers; 16 percent or $2.00 for health

aides; and 7 percent or $1.00 for non-management workers in retail.

Using the same statistical approach, we can also estimate the effect of unionization on wages of

women with different levels of formal education. The first five bars in Figure 14show the average

union wage premium, in percent terms, with education levels ranging from less than a high school

degree to an advanced degree; for comparison's sake, the last bar shows the average for all women,

regardless of educational attainment. Unionization raises wages for women at all educational levels.The effect is weakest --but still economically large and statistically significant-- for women with the

least formal education (an 8 percent premium) and the most formal education (a 9 percent

premium). The union wage premium is largest for women with a high school degree and no

11 We use ordinary least squares (with robust standard errors) to control for age (and age squared), education (five levelsof educational attainment), state of residence, and two-digit industry. Following Hirsch and Schumacher (2004), wealso exclude all observations where the Bureau of Labor Statistics has imputed wages.


18/27


additional schooling (15 percent) and women with some college education but no four-year degree

(also about 15 percent).TABLE 6

Regression-Adjusted Union Wages, Health, and Retirement Coverage for Women, 2009-2013

Unionizationrate

(percent)

Hourly wage

Unionpremium(percent)

Health-insurance Retirement plan

Unionpremium

(p.p)

Coverageincrease

(percent)

Unionpremium

(p.p)

Coverageincrease

(percent)

All women 12.2 12.9** 17.8** 36.2 22.2** 53.1

Maids and housekeeping cleaners 6.7 21.7** 40.4** 179.5 49.6** 339.4

Janitors and building cleaners 14.0 27.8** 47.5** 160.9 33.5** 137.5

Child care workers 6.2 23.6** 15.5 103.4 23.6* 220.6

Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides 11.8 15.9** 18.9** 48.1 20.0** 89.0

All non-management occs in retail industry 5.1 6.8** 25.0** 67.8 19.5** 63.3Notes:See notes to Table 5. All women regressions include controls for age, education, state, and two-digit industry;regressions for occupations include controls for age, education, and state. Union wage premiums in percent are convertedfrom log points. Statistically significance at the 10% level is denoted with #, at the 5% with *, and at the 1% level with ** .

Union health insurance and pension coverage figures are percentage-point (p.p.) increases associated with union coverage ormembership. Coverage increases in percent terms are relative to the current coverage rates for non-union workers. Healthand pension coverage refer to 2008-2012; wages refer to 2009-2013.

FIGURE 14Union wage advantage for women, by education, 2009-2013


The positive effects of unions on women's wages can help to reduce the gender pay gap in at least

two important ways. First, since unions disproportionately raise wages at the middle and the bottom

of the wage distribution, unionization disproportionately boosts the wages of women, who, as a

group, are overrepresented at the middle and the bottom of the wage scale. Second, the structure of

union collective bargaining agreements works to narrow pay differentials both across and within

8.2

15.0 14.7

13.4

9.2

12.9

0

5

10

15

Less than HS High School Some College College Advanced All

Percent


19/27


occupations inside unionized firms.12 The reduced managerial discretion and the transparency

provided by collective bargaining agreements can help to counteract the negative effects of the

concentration of women in lower-paying occupations and the tendency of women to be more

heavily concentrated at the middle and the bottom of wage distribution within any given occupation.

Consistent with this logic, a recent analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the National

Women's Law Center found that in 2013 the gender wage gap among union workers was only halfas large as it was among non-union workers.13

Health Insurance

Unionized women are also much more likely to have health-insurance benefits than women who

work without a union contract. Almost three-fourths (73.1 percent) of women in union jobs have

employer-provided (or union-provided) health insurance where the employer pays at least part of the

premium, compared to just under half (49.1 percent) of women in non-union jobs (Table 5).

Employers in union workplaces are not only more likely to provide paid health insurance, but they

also typically cover a higher share of the health-insurance costs than non-union employers.

According to Jenifer MacGillvary and Netsy Firestein (2009, 3): Companies with 30 percent or

more unionized workers are five times as likely as companies with no unionized workers to pay the

entire family health insurance premium. Even when unionized employees are required to pay part of

their family insurance premium, they pay a much lower share of the premium than nonunionized

workers do13 percent of the premium compared to 32 percent.

The strong union advantage for health-insurance coverage holds even after controlling for women'sage, formal education, state of residence, and industry of employment: unionized women were still

about 36 percent more likely than non-union women to have health-insurance coverage (calculated

as a 17.8 percentage-point union premium, in Table 6, relative to a non-union coverage rate of 49.1

percent, in Table 5).

As was the case with wages, these union effects are large for women at all educational levels --and

especially large for women with the lowest levels of formal education. Women with less than a high

school education are more than twice as likely to have employer-provided health insurance if they

are represented by a union (Figure 15).

12 For a comprehensive overview of the impact of unions on workers, firms, industries, and the economy, see Freemanand Medoff (1984) and Bennett and Kaufman (2007).

13 National Women's Law Center, "Gender Wage Gap for Union Members Is Half the Size of Non-Union Workers'Wage Gap," http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/gender-wage-gap-union-members-half-size-non-union-workers-wage-gap, accessed June 13, 2014.


20/27


FIGURE 15Union Health-Insurance Advantage for Women, by Education, 2009-2013

Source:Authors' analysis of March CPS.

The strong, positive effects of unionization on health insurance also apply to women in typically

low-wage occupations. Hotel housekeepers, office cleaners, health aides, and non-management retail

workers are between 19 percentage points and 48 percentage points more likely to have health

insurance if they are covered by a union contract.14

Retirement

A similar picture holds for retirement plans. Almost three-fourths (74.4 percent) of unionized

women participate in some form of employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared to well below

half (41.8 percent) of non-union women (Table 5). Even after controlling for key worker

characteristics, unionized women are 53 percent more likely than comparable non-union women are

to have a retirement plan (Table 6). When it comes to retirement plans, the union advantage is

particularly large for women with the least formal education (Figure 16) as well as for women in a

range of typically low-wage occupations, including hotel cleaners, office cleaners, child-care workers,

health aides, and retail workers (Table 6).

14 Unionized child-care workers are about 16 percent more likely than non-union child-care workers are to have healthinsurance, but the effect is not statistically significant in the data we analyze here.

106.1

41.3

33.3

27.2 26.2

36.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Percent


21/27


FIGURE 16Union Retirement-Plan Advantage for Women, by Education, 2009-2013

Source:Authors' analysis of March CPS.

In the analysis in Tables 5 and 6, we define a worker as having a retirement plan if their employer

offers and the worker participates in a retirement plan, even if the employer makes no contribution

to the plan. Unfortunately, the CPS data do not allow us to distinguish between defined-

contribution retirement plans (such as 401(k) plans) and defined-benefit plans (traditional pension

plans where workers receive a guaranteed payment that depends on their pay and years of service) or

to track the level of any employer contribution. But, John Budd's (2005, Table 1) analysis of 2004

Employer Costs for Employee Benefits data finds that, in the private sector, union workers aremuch more likely than non-union workers to have a defined-benefit retirement plan.

Family and Medical Leave

Union workplaces are substantially more likely than non-union workplaces to allow workers to take

family and medical leave. Based on an analysis of the 2012 Family and Medical Leave Act worksite

survey, Helene Jorgensen and Eileen Appelbaum concluded that firms with a union presence were

22 percent more likely to allow workers to take parental leave for a new child, 16 percent more likely

to allow workers to take medical leave for their own illness, 12 percent more likely to allow workers

to take medical leave for pregnancy, and 19 percent more likely to allow workers to take medical

leave to care for a family member (Table 7 andFigure 17).15

15 Unpublished tabulations supplied by Jorgensen and Appelbaum. The increases in the likelihood of being allowed totake leave are based on the ratio of union to non-union rates in rows two and three in Table 7.

68.3

46.348.2

35.433.1

53.1

0

20

40

60

80


Percent


22/27


TABLE 7

Worksites Allowing Family and Medical Leave, By Union Status, 2012 (percent)

Parental Leave Medical Leave

Leave type New child Own illness Pregnancy Family member

All firms 81.7 85.7 78.6 84.2

Union presence 99.3 99.3 87.4 99.3

No union 81.2 85.3 78.3 83.7

Small firms (1-49)

Union presence 99.7 99.7 80.8 99.7

No union 79.8 84.2 76.7 82.5

Medium firms (50-250)

Union presence 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5

No union 97.5 99.2 97.4 98.0

Large firms (251 and up)

Union presence 100.0 100.0 99.8 100.0

No union 92.7 93.5 93.5 93.0

Notes: Unpublished analysis of 2012 FMLA Worksite survey by Helene Jorgensen and EileenAppelbaum. Workplace weighted estimates. Details available on request.

FIGURE 17Access to Family and Medical Leave, 2012

Source: Unpublished tabulations supplied by Jorgensen and Appelbaum.

Women covered by a collective bargaining agreement are also much more likely than non-union

women to take paid parental leave. Using CPS data, Heather Boushey, Jane Farrell, and John

Schmitt (2013, Figure 5) calculate that unionized women were 1.6 times more likely than comparable

non-union women to take family leave. They also found that when women do take parental leave,

union women are about 13 percent more likely than non-union women to have that leave paid.16

MacGillvary and Firestein (2009) report an even higher union advantage when they focused on the

availability of paid family leave for hourly workers. Hourly workers in unions were 59 percent more

16 Boushey, Farrell, and Schmitt (2013, 11-13), calculated as a 6.2 percentage-point union advantage in their Figure 12divided by raw non-union baseline average of 45 percent in their Figure 11 and in their text on p. 11.

81.2

85.3

78.3

83.7

99.3

99.3

87.4

99.3

0 25 50 75 100

New child

Own illness

Pregnancy

Family member

Percent

Union Non-union


23/27


likely to receive fully paid or partially paid family leaves than hourly workers who weren't in unions. 17

One reason that union workplaces allow greater access to paid family and medical leave is because

many collective bargaining agreements include language guaranteeing these kinds of leaves (and

often requiring that these leaves be paid). But, MacGillvary and Firestein note that unions may also

promote compliance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), both by educatingworkers about their rights under the FMLA and by monitoring firms' compliance with their

obligations under the law. They estimate that: Companies with any unionized employees are 1.7

times as likely to comply with the FMLA as companies without any unionized employees.18

But, even before passage of the FMLA, union workplaces were substantially more likely to have

maternity leave benefits than non-union workplaces19 and unions had a major impact on

availability of [parental] leave, though only for women.20

Paid Sick Days

According to the most recent data from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), in the private

sector, unionized workplaces are 18 percent more likely than non-union workplaces to offer paid

sick leave (Figure 18).21 These rates of access to paid sick days are reflected in private-sector

employer expenditures for paid sick days (Table 8).

FIGURE 18Access to Paid Leave, Private Sector, 2013

Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014, Table 5) analysis of National Compensation Survey.

17 MacGillvary and Firestein (2009), p. 3: Unionized workers are more likely to receive fully paid and partially paidfamily leaves. Comparing hourly workers who take leave, 46 percent of unionized workers compared to 29 percent ofnonunionized workers receive full pay while on leave.

18 MacGillvary and Firestein (2009), p. 3.19 Dalto (1989), Table 1, p. 258.20 Wunnava and Ewing (2000) p. 51.

Dalto (1989) analyzed the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey; Wunnava and Ewing (2000), the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth for the 1990s.

21 These findings are consistent with other research. See, for example, Budd (2005).

60

75

76

71

91

92

0 25 50 75 100

Paid sick leave

Paid vacation

Paid holidays

Percent

Union Non-union


24/27


TABLE 8Average Employer Costs for Paid Leave Benefits, Private Industry, 2013

(dollars per hour of work)

Union Non-union

Paid sick leave 0.42 0.24

Paid vacation 1.51 1.02

Paid holidays 0.86 0.60

Paid personal 0.15 0.11Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014, Table 5) analysis of National Compensation Survey.

Union workers are also much more likely than non-union workers to be able to use sick days to care

for a sick child. According to MacGillvary and Firestein (2009, 3): Unionized workers are 1.3 times

as likely as nonunionized workers to be allowed to use their own sick time to care for a sick child,

and they are 50 percent more likely than nonunionized workers to have paid personal leave that can

be used to care for sick children.

Paid Vacation Days and Paid Holidays

In the private sector, union workers are also much more likely than non-union workers to have paid

vacation days and paid holidays. In 2013, private-sector union workers were 21 percent more likely

to have paid vacation days or paid holidays than non-union workers in the private sector (Figure

18).22

Child-care Benefits

Unionization also improves worker access to child-care services. Citing Department of Labor data,

MacGillvary and Firestein (2009, 4) conclude: In the private sector, 19 percent of unionized

workers compared to 10 percent of nonunionized workers receive child-care resource and referral

services from their employers. Additionally, 37 percent of private-sector unionized workers

compared to 31 percent of private-sector nonunionized workers have dependent care

reimbursement accounts, in which part of their salary is set aside each month on a pre-tax basis to

pay for eligible child-care expenses.

22 As before, we calculate the relative probabilities as the ratio of the union to non-union coverage rates. These resultsare consistent with earlier research; see, for example, Budd (2005).


25/27


Conclusion

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that coverage by a collective bargaining agreement

substantially boost women's earnings and increase their access to benefits that enable them to meet

the needs of their families, such as health insurance, retirement plans, paid sick days, paid parental

leave, and family medical leave.

While unionization rates have been falling steadily for women (and for men) for the last several

decades, one-in-nine women in the U.S. workforce is still covered by a union contract. At the same

time, because unionization rates have been falling more slowly for women than they have for men,

the share of women in the overall unionized workforce has been growing steadily, and women today

make up just under half of all union workers --on their way to being a majority of union workers by

2025.

While unions --on their own-- cannot bring the nations workplace policies in line with the needs of

the 21st century working families, unions can play a central role in that process. In recent decades, as

women have become a rising share of the union workforce, union contracts have become

increasingly responsive to the particular concerns of working women --from higher pay and better

benefits, to paid sick days, paid family leave, and paid medical leave. As women move toward

majority status in the labor movement, the potential for unions to contribute to a broader work-

family agenda can only increase.


26/27


References

Appelbaum, Eileen, Heather Boushey, and John Schmitt. 2014. The Economic Importance ofWomens Rising Hours of Work: Timeto Update Employment Standards." Washington,DC: Center for American Progress and Center for Economic and Policy Research.http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdf

Baird, Chardie L. and John R. Reynolds. 2004. Employee Awareness of Family Leave Benefits: TheEffects of Family, Work, and Gender. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 325-353.

Bennett, James T. and Bruce E. Kauffman (eds.). 2007. What Do Unions Do? A Twenty-Year Perspective.Edison, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Bianchi, Suzanne M., John P. Robinson, and Melissa A. Milkie. 2006. Changing Rhythms of AmericanFamily Life. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.

Budd, John W. 2005. The Effect of Unions on Employee Benefits: Updated EmployerExpenditure Results.Journal of Labor Research. Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 669-676.

Budd, John W. and Brian P. McCall. 1997. The Effect of Unions on the Receipt of UnemploymentInsurance Benefits. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 478-492.

Bureau of Labor Stastistics. 2013. Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2013.http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.

Bureau of Labor Stastistics. 2014. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, December 2013.http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

Cobble, Dorothy S. 1993. Women and Unions: Forging a Partnership. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press.

Cobble, Dorothy S. 2005. The Other Women's Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in ModernAmerica. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Cobble, Dorothy S. (ed.). 2007. The Sex of Class: Women Transforming American Labor.Ithaca, NewYork: ILR Press.

Fichtenbaum, Rudy and Paulette Olson. 2002. The Impact of Unionization on Health InsuranceBenefits.Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 323-330.

Folbre, Nancy. 2009. Inequality and Time Use in the Household. In Wiemer Salverda, BrianNolan, and Timothy Smeeding (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford:Oxford University Press.


27/27

Foner, Philip S. 1982. Women and the American Labor Movement: From the First Trade Unions to the Present.New York: Free Press.

Freeman, Richard B. and James L. Medoff. 1984. What Do Unions Do?New York: Basic Books.

Gabin, Nancy F. 1990. Feminism in the Labor Movement: Women and the United Auto Workers, 1935-1975.Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Hirsch, Barry T. and Edward J. Schumacher. 2004. "Match Bias in Wage Gap Estimates Due toEarnings Imputation."Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 689-722.

Kingsolver, Barbara. 1996. Holding the Line: Women in the Great Arizona Mine Strike of 1983. Ithaca,New York: ILR Press.

MacGillvary, Jenifer with Netsy Firestein. 2009. Family-Friendly Workplaces: Do Unions Make aDifference? Berkeley, California: UC Berkeley Center for Labor Education and LaborProject for Working Families.http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/jobquality/familyfriendly09.pdf

Milkman, Ruth. 1990. Women, Work and Protest: A Century of U.S. Women's Labor History. London:Routledge.

Rho, Hye Jin, John Schmitt, Nicole Woo, Lucia Lin , and Kent Wong. 2011. Diversity and Change:Asian American and Pacific Islander Workers.Washington, DC: Center for Economic andPolicy Research. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/aapi-2011-07.pdf

Schmitt, John and Kris Warner. 2010. The Changing Face of U.S. Labor, 1983-2008,WorkingUSA, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 263-79.http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/changing-face-of-labor-2009-11.pdf

United Nations Development Program. 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008.http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/268/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf

Wunnava, Phanindra V. and Bradley T. Ewing. 2000. Union-Nonunion Gender Wage and BenefitDifferentials across Establishment Sizes. Small Business Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 47-57.

women, working families, and unions

Documents